MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739309500

Making the connection between police information and knowledge use, organizational culture, and information use outcomes

2013· article· en· W2739309500 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCharles Sturt University Research Output (CRO) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCharles Sturt University
KeywordsKnowledge managementInformation governanceOrganizational cultureOrganizational learningBusinessInformation systemPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceManagement information systemsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North American policing has evolved from the traditional reactive professional model towards models that are ever-increasingly information and knowledge-intensive and skill dependent. Yet information and knowledge sharing within and across police agencies remains problematic, as demonstrated by high profile police investigative failures attributed to poor information sharing by police, ineffective police structures, restrictive technologies, and maladaptive information behaviours, values, and cultures. Two empirical studies of sworn officers from three Canadian municipal police agencies extended an information behaviour and outcome framework previously used in private sector organizations to policing. A total of 134 officers completed a web-based questionnaire about individual and agency organizational information culture and its impact on information use in policing. Study One applied generalised linear modelling regression analysis to examine information management and information behaviours and values within these agencies and discerned which of five behaviour and value factors contributed most to key information use outcomes in policing, namely information proactiveness and information management. Principal component factor analysis uncovered two new information behaviour and value factors that collectively accounted for 71% of the common variance in achievement of these outcomes: information quality control (38%) and proactive collaboration (33%). Significant interactions revealed that the three agencies were distinguished by their information management and sharing behaviours. Increases in information management augmented information use outcomes in a large independent agency and yielded significantly greater information use outcomes in a medium-sized independent agency. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) achieved larger information use outcomes for each unit of information sharing than both independent municipal police agencies. Seven discrete impediments to information sharing were identified in Study Two by applying inductive qualitative analyses of officers’ responses to an open-ended question about perceived impediments to information sharing and use within their agency. Ranking of the impediments was consistent across the three agencies, with organizational structure and organizational culture rated as the top two major sources of impairment. Findings established the relationship between perceived impediments to information and knowledge sharing and the agencies’ structural, technical, and cultural knowledge management capabilities infrastructures. Together, these studies confirmed that Canadian police agencies differed in their information management, information behaviours and values, and/or the achievement of the three key information use outcomes: problem solving, creating work that is beneficial, and information sharing, components that form the foundation of all contemporary North American policing models. The findings contributed to an evidence-based understanding of the dynamics of information behaviours and values within policing, and identified opportunities to improve police policy and practice in a context typified by reduced budgets, limited resources, and increased workloads. Accordingly, police agencies were advised to manage and take a proactive and collaborative stance regarding information behaviours and values within their agencies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.012
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it